Sunday, 20 September 2009

MINISTERS are considering making motorists legally responsible for accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians, even if they are not at fault.

Government advisers are pushing for changes in the civil law that will make the most powerful vehicle involved in a collision automatically liable for insurance and compensation purposes.

And for why? The environment, of course. Good grief.

Again, one must wonder at the sanity of Labour policy-makers. And again, there can be only two possible explanations.

1) Labour simply don't ever want to be elected again. And while I would applaud their selfless political suicide for the good of the country if that were the case, it's a bit difficult to imagine that such control freaks and power mad, dictatorial tax spongers are that community conscious, so it only leaves us with ...

2) Labour are so mired in fake charities; self-appointed, state-paid moral guardians; personal-enrichment obsessed quangoistas; personal politics motivated civil servants, and single issue fruitcakes, that they believe - and I mean truly believe - that the millions who are turned off or enraged at their lunatic ideas are unrepresentative of the population.

Either that, or they have invested all the Labour Party membership fees in 'no win, no fee' solicitor stocks.

So motorists join small businessmen, large businessmen, householders, smokers, drinkers, chocolate-lovers, teens, the elderly, parent volunteers, home schoolers, and Daniel Hannan, on Labour's bingo card of people to denormalise and mark out for government spite.

The thing is .. .. .. .. the CTC are all in favour of this kind of legislation. If you want to see what militant cyclists think then why not take a peek at their forum (I'm a member of the forum, not the organisation)

The CTC are some of the biggest hypocrites on the planet, constantly calling for ever harsher restrictions on motorists while wanting legal curbs on cyclists lifted. For example, we had the plan a few days ago to allow cyclists to go the wrong way down one-way streets. And no doubt if any motorist hit one doing that, it would be his fault.

I have commented elsewhere that cyclists have now come to be seen as a form of modern secular saints, dedicated worshippers at the shrine of Global Warming, who can effectively do no wrong, and whose every transgression is excused.

Captainff: The CTC are a bit slow on this news aren't they? Are they too busy Sunday night cycle-touring or something?

Thanks for the link, it'll be good to watch tomorrow and see what they are saying. Might even sign up myself to tell them that the obvious upshot of this will be mandatory insurance for cyclists. ;-)

Curmudgeon: It's funny you should say that about one way roads as a few years ago, I turned into a two-way road at midnight to be met with a kid riding on the wrong side of the road towards me, no lights. I missed him by a whisker after severe steering. In that case, with this proposal, I would have been in the wrong.

I'm also minded of a trip to Los Angeles in 1994 before our litigious culture had been fully embedded where I took a taxi to a western night and within a 2 mile journey, three separate youngsters deliberately rode in front of my taxi. The driver said it was a nightly occurrence as the young gangs had worked out they could claim if they got hit.

As I mentioned over at the Devil's Kitchen, I've had a crash with a cyclist who not only knackered her bike but destroyed my windscreen and damaged the bonnet and wing. Because she was on a bicycle she had no insurance, and presumably because she could she changed her phone number and never got in contact again despite promising to contribute to the damage she caused. Oh yes, it was entirely her fault because I was stationary at a junction waiting for a gap in the traffic. Bad enough that her combined stupidity and failure to take responsibility left me out of pocket as far as my insurance excess went, bad enough that since there was no chance of recovering costs the cunting insurance company called it an 'own fault' accident and threatened to put my premiums up, but had I been legally responsible and had to buy the stupid bitch a new bike as well then I'd have fucked off and left the country. Okay, I did that anyway for my own reasons, but who the fuck would want to live in a country where the law finds fault not on the basis of who did what but on power output?

I see myself more as a pedestrian than a driver and was pleasantly surprised when I followed Captainff's link to the forum. It seems that, on the whole, the cyclists there are against cycling on the footpath.